Amit Kumar & others v. State of Punjab & others
Case Details
CRM-M-20746-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 297 CRM-M-20746-2025 Date of decision:27.05.2025 Amit Kumar & others ... Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab & others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA. Present:
Legal Reasoning
this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. It is equally settled position of law that the power of HARJEET KAUR 2025.05.29 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20746-2025 -3- High Court in quashing criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation. Such power can certainly be exercised in cases where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. The High Court is required to consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate to put an end to the criminal case and if the answer to such question is in affirmative, then the High Court is well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. Reference in this context can be made to Hon’ble Apex Court judgments cited as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543 and Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466. Reference can also be made to another judgment rendered in Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 Crl. L.R. (SC) 1527, wherein, it was observed that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in post-conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is sub-judice before an Appellate Court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sine-qua-non to involve the superior court’s plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be HARJEET KAUR 2025.05.29 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20746-2025 -4- impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. It was also observed that the purpose of these extra-ordinary powers was not to incentivise any hollow-hearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s). 10. In view of the proposition of law as settled in the aforementioned cases, this Court finds that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse process of the Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case which squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and that allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing of the FIR No.138 dated 14.09.2021 registered under Sections 324, 323 and 34 IPC, at Police Station Khuian Sarwar, District Fazilka as well as judgment of conviction and quantum of punishment as imposed upon the petitioners vide order dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) and by closing the proceedings as pending before the learned Lower Appellate Court in appeal would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of legislature enacted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.138 dated 14.09.2021 registered under Sections 324, 323 and 34 IPC, at Police Station Khuian Sarwar, District Fazilka, the conviction order dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) as well as the appeal as pending before the Appellate Court and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise. 11. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms HARJEET KAUR 2025.05.29 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20746-2025 -5- and conditions of the compromise and statements as recorded before learned Judicial Magistrate. 27.05.2025 harjeet (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : Yes/No Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2025.05.29 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Arguments
Mr. Manish Gilhotra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vivek Sharma, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Vishal Mittal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. ... MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL). 1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.138 dated 14.09.2021 registered under Sections 324, 323 and 34 IPC, at Police Station Khuian Sarwar, District Fazilka and judgment of conviction and quantum of punishment as imposed upon the petitioners vide order dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) on the basis of compromise deed dated 06.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties and directions were given to record their statements before the trial Court in pursuance thereof. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the parties by making amicable settlement have resolved their inter se dispute and therefore, it is submitted by them that the quashing of the HARJEET KAUR 2025.05.29 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20746-2025 -2- aforementioned complaint and the proceedings emanating therefrom, deserve to be allowed as the continuation of thereof would be a futile exercise. 5. This Court vide order dated 22.02.2025 had given directions to the parties to appear before the trial Court for recording their statements. 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka has sent report dated 22.05.2025 to this Court along with photocopies of the statements of respondents No.2 & 3, petitioners/accused and Investigating Officer- HC Jagjeet Singh recorded. 7. On the basis of these statements, it is submitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, out of free Will and without any pressure or coercion. It is also mentioned in the report that apart from the petitioners, there is no other accused in the complaint and that the present petitioners have not been declared proclaimed offenders in this case. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and besides perusing the report by learned Judicial Magistrate, have also perused the record. 9. It is well settled that the High Court has power to allow compounding of a non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. where it feels that the same is required to prevent the abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In this regard, reference can be made to a Full Bench judgment of